There is a paradox which ensures the existence of absolute truths.If I were to say:"There are no absolute truths" then that would be an absolute truth. It would yield a self contradictory answer. It is absolutely true, that there is nothing absolutely true.Therefore it cannot be that absolute truths do not exist.For if they did not exist, they would necessarily exist.Discuss.

#StandWithBossy
#Addison/Blade-of-Truth: I slapped a girl on the arse once with a piece of uncooked chicken, things got weird.
You threw it away, right? -Ajab
...
Oh lord did you eat it?
...maybe!

At 7/1/2014 5:53:31 AM, Ajab wrote:There is a paradox which ensures the existence of absolute truths.If I were to say:"There are no absolute truths" then that would be an absolute truth. It would yield a self contradictory answer. It is absolutely true, that there is nothing absolutely true.Therefore it cannot be that absolute truths do not exist.For if they did not exist, they would necessarily exist.Discuss. </strong

That which is absolute is that which is partial, and that which is partial is that which is absolute. Contradiction is the very defining of reality. Without it, life would not make sense.

At 7/1/2014 5:53:31 AM, Ajab wrote:There is a paradox which ensures the existence of absolute truths.If I were to say:"There are no absolute truths" then that would be an absolute truth. It would yield a self contradictory answer. It is absolutely true, that there is nothing absolutely true.Therefore it cannot be that absolute truths do not exist.For if they did not exist, they would necessarily exist.Discuss.

Please clarify what is meant by "truth" and further more by "absolute truth." I think the apparent force of the paradox comes from loosely defined terms.

I would think that this paradox depends on our understanding of truth. A coherence position might interpret the above statement to mean that truth only exists relative to a system of knowledge. Affirming this interpretation of the original statement does not create a self-negating paradox.

This also seems trivial - it only proves that at least one "absolute truth" exists. The initial statement could be reformulated:

"There are no absolute truths other than this statement." or "This statement is the only absolute truth."

At 7/1/2014 5:53:31 AM, Ajab wrote:There is a paradox which ensures the existence of absolute truths.If I were to say:"There are no absolute truths" then that would be an absolute truth. It would yield a self contradictory answer. It is absolutely true, that there is nothing absolutely true.Therefore it cannot be that absolute truths do not exist.For if they did not exist, they would necessarily exist.Discuss.

Please clarify what is meant by "truth" and further more by "absolute truth." I think the apparent force of the paradox comes from loosely defined terms.

I would think that this paradox depends on our understanding of truth. A coherence position might interpret the above statement to mean that truth only exists relative to a system of knowledge. Affirming this interpretation of the original statement does not create a self-negating paradox.

This also seems trivial - it only proves that at least one "absolute truth" exists. The initial statement could be reformulated:

"There are no absolute truths other than this statement." or "This statement is the only absolute truth."

But then an absolute truth would exist. If an absolute truth exists, then absolute truth exists.Truth in itself is relative to the system, there we have absolute truth as truth which applies to all systems.

#StandWithBossy
#Addison/Blade-of-Truth: I slapped a girl on the arse once with a piece of uncooked chicken, things got weird.
You threw it away, right? -Ajab
...
Oh lord did you eat it?
...maybe!

At 7/1/2014 5:53:31 AM, Ajab wrote:There is a paradox which ensures the existence of absolute truths.If I were to say:"There are no absolute truths" then that would be an absolute truth. It would yield a self contradictory answer. It is absolutely true, that there is nothing absolutely true.Therefore it cannot be that absolute truths do not exist.For if they did not exist, they would necessarily exist.Discuss.

Please clarify what is meant by "truth" and further more by "absolute truth." I think the apparent force of the paradox comes from loosely defined terms.

I would think that this paradox depends on our understanding of truth. A coherence position might interpret the above statement to mean that truth only exists relative to a system of knowledge. Affirming this interpretation of the original statement does not create a self-negating paradox.

This also seems trivial - it only proves that at least one "absolute truth" exists. The initial statement could be reformulated:

"There are no absolute truths other than this statement." or "This statement is the only absolute truth."

But then an absolute truth would exist. If an absolute truth exists, then absolute truth exists.Truth in itself is relative to the system, there we have absolute truth as truth which applies to all systems.

Therefore, being relative, it is partial. Truth is absolutely true, to specified systems; however, it is also partial, to those systems.

Simpler explanation to this would be, you can not claim that there isn't any absolute truth. That's like ruling out all possibilities to create a paradox. However that is not the case. If you claim that there is no absolute truth. Then there is no truth to your claim either. Your proposition is self contradictory in itself. So before we consider your proposition to be absolutely true, it has unproven itself. Hence it's not a paradox!

At 7/6/2014 6:22:47 PM, Shehrozalam wrote:Simpler explanation to this would be, you can not claim that there isn't any absolute truth. That's like ruling out all possibilities to create a paradox. However that is not the case. If you claim that there is no absolute truth. Then there is no truth to your claim either. Your proposition is self contradictory in itself. So before we consider your proposition to be absolutely true, it has unproven itself. Hence it's not a paradox!

If one claimed there were no absolute truths, he, or she, would only be partly right. There are no absolute truths, existing alone; for, every truth is partly false; and, every falsehood is partly true. Contradiction, and paradox, is very real.

Saying that there are no absolute truths is just simply an incorrect statement considering it disproves itself. All it means is that you must, of necessity, adjust the statement to be,"the only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths other than this very statement." (Lol). Either way, i don't believe that there actually is a lack of absolute truths. I just believe that absolute truths, of necessity, needs to be specific. For instance, a+a=2a is probably universally true. The reason I don't say 1+1=2, is because then people can play word games because of how unspecific the equation is, like "one pile of sand plus one pile of sand equals one pile of sand." In order for the equation to be true the "two parts" must have equal value and remain as the same unit throughout the completion of the equation. Thus one large pile of sand does not equal a small pile of sand and therefor does not fulfill the requirements of the equation. Although you could say that one 10 lb pile of sand plus one 10 lb pile of sand equals one 20 lb pile of sand, you still couldn't say that the equation is wrong considering that you had to actually change the form and content of the original units in order to combine them. In other words, you no longer are combining two units of a certain consistent value (labeled "a" in the equation) but you're just making a big old new unit (called "b"). Obviously you cannot change the units halfway through the equation and say that you are still combining two units called "a". The units must maintain consistency to fit the requirements of the equation. But nonetheless, it also doesn't negate the fact that the unit now labeled "b" is still 2 of "a", and so the equation is still correct either way, even if we allow a compromise of the integrity of the original units and want to still pretend that they are the units "a" for the equation.

Either way, even if someone were to find an exemption to my attempted "absolute truth", I could simply come up with another restriction to add on to the equation. Even if you were to continue to come up with more exemptions, I could simply come up with more restrictions. Eventually we would simply run out of exemptions (since there obviously could only be a very limited amount) and my statement would then become an absolute truth, it would just have to be incredibly complex and specific. So even if the absolute truth was so long that it took fifty billion pages just to type it all out, it would nonetheless be an absolute truth.

Also, as funny as it is, you can achieve an absolute truth by being very unspecific. For instance "most dogs alive today have eyes" or "some dogs have tails" could probably be considered absolute truths considering they are unspecific enough through the use of the word "most" and "some" to actually be universally true. Using a lack of specificity, you can easily come up with truths that always apply. "Some people have teeth", "I have been angry before", "old people sometimes have wrinkles".

So, in other words, even if the statement "there are no absolute truths" is changed to "there are no absolute truths except for this very statement", I believe it would still be wrong since I believe that absolute truths do indeed exist. It's just that specific absolute truths are incredibly hard to come by and unspecific absolute truths aren't always particularly useful.

At 7/1/2014 5:53:31 AM, Ajab wrote:There is a paradox which ensures the existence of absolute truths.If I were to say:"There are no absolute truths" then that would be an absolute truth. It would yield a self contradictory answer. It is absolutely true, that there is nothing absolutely true.Therefore it cannot be that absolute truths do not exist.For if they did not exist, they would necessarily exist.Discuss.

1). Just because you say something doesn't mean it is true.

2). Just call truth truth bro, there is only one truth. Thugh this doesn't mean two people cannot be right.

"Kids are cool, but I couldn't handle the responsibility. :/ Probably for the best if I just get an alpaca or something."
-Andromeda_Z-

Quote: "The truth is rarely pure, and never simple". Oscar Wilde 1854-1900.Absolute truth?.American in New York: the sun is rising. Japanese in Tokyo: the sun is setting.Both absolute truth.Truth is subjectiveRemember bin Laden?. Against Russia=freedomfighter. Against the U.S.=terrorist.Truth cannot be "absolute" unless you remove any and all variables. Who knows everything about anything and can say "this is absolutely true"?.

At 7/1/2014 5:53:31 AM, Ajab wrote:There is a paradox which ensures the existence of absolute truths.If I were to say:"There are no absolute truths" then that would be an absolute truth. It would yield a self contradictory answer. It is absolutely true, that there is nothing absolutely true.Therefore it cannot be that absolute truths do not exist.For if they did not exist, they would necessarily exist.Discuss. </strong

That which is absolute is that which is partial, and that which is partial is that which is absolute. Contradiction is the very defining of reality. Without it, life would not make sense.

Ah, so life would be like this post.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" -Einstein

At 12/23/2016 8:49:03 AM, GrimlyF wrote:Quote: "The truth is rarely pure, and never simple". Oscar Wilde 1854-1900.Absolute truth?.American in New York: the sun is rising. Japanese in Tokyo: the sun is setting.Both absolute truth.Truth is subjectiveRemember bin Laden?. Against Russia=freedomfighter. Against the U.S.=terrorist.Truth cannot be "absolute" unless you remove any and all variables. Who knows everything about anything and can say "this is absolutely true"?.

Well, because of solipsism, you technically can't say for sure that anything is true. However this doesn't mean there isn't objective reality. Just because objective reality can't be known for certain doesn't mean it doesn't exist because it is only in subjective reality that something is required to be known to be real.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" -Einstein

At 7/1/2014 5:53:31 AM, Ajab wrote:There is a paradox which ensures the existence of absolute truths.If I were to say:"There are no absolute truths" then that would be an absolute truth. It would yield a self contradictory answer. It is absolutely true, that there is nothing absolutely true.Therefore it cannot be that absolute truths do not exist.For if they did not exist, they would necessarily exist.Discuss.

"There are no absolute truths" is not an absolute truth statement, as you are assuming it to be. Thus, there is no inherent contradiction.

"There are no absolute truths" can be, and is, a relative truth statement. There are relative truths, which we sometimes misinterpret as being absolute, as you have done. And there are may be absolute truths that we cannot verify as being absolute because we are limited in both perception and cognition. The term "absolute" then refers to a state that we humans cannot ascertain. Such that when we use it, we are doing so in a relative manner, whether we realize this or not.

At 7/1/2014 5:53:31 AM, Ajab wrote:There is a paradox which ensures the existence of absolute truths.If I were to say:"There are no absolute truths" then that would be an absolute truth. It would yield a self contradictory answer. It is absolutely true, that there is nothing absolutely true.Therefore it cannot be that absolute truths do not exist.For if they did not exist, they would necessarily exist.Discuss.

Using words such as all, absolute, everything, etc...within a logical argument or train of thought is known as a fallacy of omniscience. So the statement is fallacious which negates any endeavors or discussions into it being sound reasoning. The question is a moot attempt at making a point.